Obama '08?

Kind of in the same boat. Obama was someone you could vote for as opposed to voting against the Republican candidate. I don't see Clinton in as poor a light as I saw her in 2008, but she's just a little too militant overseas and a little too inconsistent with her domestic policies to generate any enthusiasm in me.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa

1

Reply
Thu 15 Oct, 2015 05:39 am

@snood,

snood wrote:

The only problem with your equation of 'expediency vs principle' is that part of a person's choice for a candidate has to do with simple trust. No way around that - no matter what one thinks about the respective abilities of someone to manipulate and navigate the system, there has to be somewhere the belief that when it comes down to it, that person will represent their desires for what the government does. That's the problem with Hillary for a lot of people just as smart as you or me. They look at Hillary and they see someone who they don't know will always make the choice to do the right thing or the thing that serves HER.

I'd like to see more respect given from you toward people of good conscience and serviceable intellect who struggle with this choice. Just exactly like I'd like Lash to show more respect for those who calmly and soberly come to the conclusion that Hillary is the better choice.

It's tiresome seeing both of you pigeonhole those of disparate opinions with labels that paint them as naive, corrupt, stupid or somehow unsophisticated. They are just not you.

Snood, if you see what I said as being comparable to what Lash has been saying...and the way she has been saying it...then I withdraw it.

At no point was I suggesting that people who differ with me are naive, corrupt, stupid or unsophisticated.

I presented a perspective of what I suppose a successful candidate needs to consider...and I simply asked people who do not consider that perspective to be important...to give it more thought.

If it is taken to be the kind of thing Lash has been doing, however...I WITHDRAW IT.

It is not worth me putting my time and effort into it if it is perceived that way.

The only problem with your equation of 'expediency vs principle' is that part of a person's choice for a candidate has to do with simple trust. No way around that - no matter what one thinks about the respective abilities of someone to manipulate and navigate the system, there has to be somewhere the belief that when it comes down to it, that person will represent their desires for what the government does. That's the problem with Hillary for a lot of people just as smart as you or me. They look at Hillary and they see someone who they don't know will always make the choice to do the right thing or the thing that serves HER.

I'd like to see more respect given from you toward people of good conscience and serviceable intellect who struggle with this choice. Just exactly like I'd like Lash to show more respect for those who calmly and soberly come to the conclusion that Hillary is the better choice.

It's tiresome seeing both of you pigeonhole those of disparate opinions with labels that paint them as naive, corrupt, stupid or somehow unsophisticated. They are just not you.

Snood, if you see what I said as being comparable to what Lash has been saying...and the way she has been saying it...then I withdraw it.

At no point was I suggesting that people who differ with me are naive, corrupt, stupid or unsophisticated.

I presented a perspective of what I suppose a successful candidate needs to consider...and I simply asked people who do not consider that perspective to be important...to give it more thought.

If it is taken to be the kind of thing Lash has been doing, however...I WITHDRAW IT.

It is not worth me putting my time and effort into it if it is perceived that way.

You most certainly have repeatedly called people who prefer Bernie naive, blind and maybe even a couple of other adjectives. No need to completely 'withdraw' because I'm saying you and Lash share a kind of tunnel vision when it comes to championing your chosen candidate. Staying or leaving ; continuing to contribute or ceasing your posts on the subject - is just another example of all or nothing. I just want you both to allow that the other side has considered the same things as you and come up with a different opinion. That seems to be a tall task for da bot' of ya.

If you believe that the average voter wants some one they can respect and believe in, how do you explain the success of the republican party? Ronny Raygun was a liar. But he was able to convince people otherwise. George Bush 2 was a liar but when he went to Texas clearing brush he gave the voter the idea he was one of the guys. To answer my own question it was money and a media that pushed the idea they were both good guys as the media also lied while they pushed the big bucks into their pocket just as they are doing in this cycle.

If you believe that the average voter wants some one they can respect and believe in, how do you explain the success of the republican party? Ronny Raygun was a liar. But he was able to convince people otherwise. George Bush 2 was a liar but when he went to Texas clearing brush he gave the voter the idea he was one of the guys. To answer my own question it was money and a media that pushed the idea they were both good guys as the media also lied while they pushed the big bucks into their pocket just as they are doing in this cycle.

Proven not the whole truth because the establishment to include the media hates trump, Trump has not gotten hardly any money from anyone, and the American people love him. You boys are always clueless that a huge slice of Americans agree with the politics that the R have been selling, in fact what they are most pissed about right now is that the R's have not done what they said there were going to do, that they have not done enough to squash what many people believe are the bad ideas of the Left.

And JSYK politicians have tried to act like they were one of the little people, at least a little, for a long time. That is why Nixon was always wanting to talk sports.

$40 million is 8 average years of playing basketball in the NBA, lets not get crazy here....

The difference is Trump didn't have to play basketball which requires a lifetime of practice and only a few make it to the NBA. He only had to be born to a rich dad. Not skill. Not practice. Not working his butt off. Just dumb luck and no work on his part.

Exposing How Donald Trump Really Made His Fortune: Inheritance from Dad and the Government's Protection Mostly Did the Trick

This excerpt from "The Self-Made Myth: The Truth About How Government Helps Individuals and Businesses Succeed" tells the real story about how Trump got so obscenely rich.
By Brian Miller, Mike Lapham / Berrett-Koehler Publishers
July 9, 2012

​Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from Brian Miller and Mike Lapham's book, The Self-Made Myth: The Truth About How Government Helps Individuals and Businesses Succeed. (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2012). ​You can read AlterNet's Vision editor Sara Robinson's review of the book here.

In March 2011 Forbes estimated Donald Trump's net worth to be $2.7 billion, with a $60 million salary. Many praise and analyze his “success” as if it were self-made, and they fail to attribute the proper credit to others in society where it is deserved. Despite what Trump may espouse, his success would have been in no way possible without his father, the general public, and the US government. Unfortunately, Trump decided to forget or selectively ignore these truths while forming his political philosophy, a sentiment made particularly clear during his brief bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
ADVERTISING

Trump was born in New York City in 1946, the son of real estate tycoon Fred Trump. Fred Trump’s business success not only provided Donald Trump with a posh youth of private schools and economic security but eventually blessed him with an inheritance worth an estimated $40 million to $200 million. It is critical to note, however, that his father’s success, which granted Donald Trump such a great advantage, was enabled and buffered by governmental financing programs. In 1934, while struggling during the Great Depression, financing from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) allowed Fred Trump to revive his business and begin building a multitude of homes in Brooklyn, selling at $6,000 apiece. Furthermore, throughout World War II, Fred Trump constructed FHA-backed housing for US naval personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast.

In 1974 Donald Trump became president of his father’s organization. During the 15 years following his ascension, he expanded and innovated the corporation, buying and branding buildings, golf courses, hotels, casinos, and other recreational facilities. In 1980 he established The Trump Organization to oversee all of his real estate operations.

Trump eventually found himself in serious financial trouble. In 1990, due to excessive leveraging, The Trump Organization revealed that it was $5 billion in debt ($8.8 billion by some estimates), with $1 billion personally guaranteed by Trump himself. The survival of the company was made possible only by a bailout pact agreed upon in August of that same year by some 70 banks, allowing Trump to defer on nearly $1 billion in debt, as well as to take out second and third mortgages on almost all of his properties. If it were not for the collective effort of all banks and parties involved in that 1990 deal, Trump’s business would have gone bankrupt and failed.

In 1995 Trump took Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc. public and received a substantial financial boost from society and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations that enable the market to function. He initially sold 10 million shares at $14 per share and then in 1996 sold 13.25 million shares at $32.50 a share. This initial public offering granted Trump’s company a stability and legitimacy that would have been impossible without millions of people around the world trusting his organization and investing with the hope of shared success.

Despite the clear societal and governmental assistance described above, Trump continues to be outspoken in his criticism of government. In his book The America We Deserve, Trump explains that “the greatest threat to the American Dream is the idea that dreamers need close government scrutiny and control. Job one for us is to make sure the public sector does a limited job, and no more.” This quote proves to be particularly ironic when considering Trump’s feelings about eminent domain laws. He was quoted as saying, “I happen to agree with it 100 percent” when speaking of the 2005 Supreme Court decision on Kolo v. New London, which affirmed the government’s ability to transfer land from one private owner to another for the purpose of economic development in the area. In fact, Trump attempted to take advantage of eminent domain laws on multiple occasions, once even demanding that an elderly widow give up her home so that he could build a limousine parking lot.

Perhaps more disturbing than his hypocritical condemnation of the government is his failure to acknowledge anyone’s contributions, save his own, in the creation of his success. At the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump made clear his feelings on the creation of his wealth: “Over the years I’ve participated in many battles and have really almost come out very, very victorious every single time. I’ve beaten many people and companies, and I’ve won many wars. I have fairly but intelligently earned many billions of dollars, which in a sense was both a scorecard and acknowledgment of my abilities.” Furthermore, Trump apparently sees no benefit in supporting taxes to maintain institutions such as the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market, in which he publicly trades his company, or the court system, which actively protects his property rights: “We are the highest taxed nation—I would tax foreign countries that are ripping off the US and lower taxes for Americans.”

From the moment of his birth, Trump was set up for success. The large inheritance left to him by his father, coupled with the contributions and the protections of society and the US government made his ascension to the Forbes 400 list almost inevitable. Nevertheless, Trump fails to recognize this phenomenon and continues to express his belief that he did it alone.

Brian Miller is the executive director of United For a Fair Economy. Mike Lapham is a co-founder of UFE's Responsible Wealth project.

0 Replies

bobsal u1553115

2

Reply
Sat 24 Oct, 2015 09:32 pm

@hawkeye10,

$40 Millions is nothng right? Out of a nation of 350,000,000 people, what percentage are worth $40Millions they didn't earn. At least the Few bballers EARNED their $40,000,000.

0 Replies

McGentrix

-2

Reply
Sat 24 Oct, 2015 09:33 pm

Is this more of that liberal "You didn't build that" trash? Heaven forbid someone actually do something in the country. I am amazed that half the country can even get out of bed without some kind of govt assistance.